scholarly journals Proposing Minimum Requirements for Announcing Clinical Trial Results During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J Siedner ◽  
Rajesh T Gandhi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Sufficient Data ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
Important Purpose

Abstract Recently, results from at least six major randomized clinical trials studying management of COVID-19 have been announced via press release. Given the unique nature of the pandemic, results of such trials often have immediate and worldwide relevance. Yet, while press releases serve the important purpose of disseminating top-level results quickly, they are inherently limited in scope, and rarely include sufficient data to inform practice. Herein, we propose a minimum set of trial characteristics and results to be released simultaneously with clinical trial announcements. This practice will ensure data related to the management of COVID-19 can be used to appropriately impact care, while responding to the needs of diverse stakeholders in the scientific and publishing communities, as well as the public at large.

scholarly journals The Disclosure Decision of Foreign Clinical Trials in China: Moderating Effects of Firms’ Contingencies

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402110163
Author(s):  
Tariq H. Malik ◽  
Chunhui Huo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Moderating Effects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industrial Enterprises ◽  
Unit Increase ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
Clinical Trial Activity

Result disclosure of clinical trial posts a conflicting logic between private secrecy and public interest. Despite ethical and legal requirements for disclosing clinical trial results, clinical trials’ sponsors tend to withhold the results. We explored the location, timing, and rationale behind the withheld clinical trial results. Based on the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) perspective, we propose that organizational EO contingencies moderate the disclosure decision. We used the completed clinical trial projects in China by foreign and domestic sponsors. First, we found that a unit increase in the sponsor’s experience can increase the disclosure about 1.01 times. Second, we found that industrial enterprises disclose results about 3.7 times more than universities do. Third, we found that foreign clinical trial projects in China tend to disclose 3.9 times more than domestic projects. We link these findings to two types of audience. First, we inform the academic community on the theory and empirics regarding risk-taking behavior in the biopharmaceutical industry’s clinical trial activity. Second, we address the general audiences concerned about the ethical and socioeconomic wellbeing of the public.

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

scholarly journals Are clinical trial results transferable in the real life?

2016 ◽  
Vol 84 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Natale ◽  
Alfiera Marsocci
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Recurrent Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Recurrent Event ◽  
The Real ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

<p>Generally in the clinical practice patients are more complex in comparison with those included in the clinical trials. In this article, we discuss three relevant items, which may implement the transferability of the clinical trial results in the real world. The observational studies have fewer restrictions on the number of patients included, due to more relaxed inclusion and exlusion criteria than in randomized clinical trials. The absence of randomization however may lead to potential for bias. The recurrent event analysis may extend the positive results of clinical trials regarding the reductions of the first primary endpoint event to total events, including those beyond the first event. This analysis is of great interest in the clinical practice, where recurrent events are common. Finally the reliability of subgroup analysis is discussed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses are more credible and valuable than <em>post-hoc</em> analyses.</p><p><strong>Riassunto</strong></p><p>Nella pratica clinica i pazienti sono generalmente più complessi rispetto alle popolazioni studiate nei trial clinici. Si rendono necessari pertanto strumenti di analisi che integrino i trial clinici. In questo articolo vengono esaminati alcuni punti di rilevante importanza nella definizione di una corretta applicabilità dei risultati dei trial clinici al mondo reale. Il primo punto riguarda il ruolo e i limiti degli studi osservazionali. Il secondo tratta delle analisi degli eventi ricorrenti, una modalità di analisi dei trial clinici che rende i risultati più aderenti alla vita reale, nella consapevolezza che limitare i dati di outcome al primo evento sia riduttivo rispetto alla necessità di stabilire che l’intervento studiato nel trial confermi la sua efficacia anche sugli eventi successivi al primo. Il terzo punto riguarda la controversa questione delle analisi per sottogruppi, uno strumento utile per generare ipotesi, ma discutibile quando impiegato per rimediare a trial con risultati negativi o estendere i risultati di trial positivi a sottopopolazioni particolari di pazienti. </p>

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19: Syntheses, Mechanism of Infection and Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subha Sankar Paul ◽  
Goutam Biswas
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Molecule ◽  
Mode Of Action ◽  
Antiviral Drugs ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

: COVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern. Although, considerable knowledge has been acquired with time about the viral mechanism of infection and mode of replication, yet no specific drugs or vaccines have been discovered against SARS-CoV-2, till date. There are few small molecule antiviral drugs like Remdesivir and Favipiravir which have shown promising results in different advanced stage of clinical trials. Chloroquinine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Lopinavir-Ritonavir combination, although initially was hypothesized to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, are now discontinued from the solidarity clinical trials. This review provides a brief description of their chemical syntheses along with their mode of action and clinical trial results available in Google and different peer reviewed journals till 24th October 2020.

scholarly journals Clinical trial research on COVID-19 in Germany – a systematic analysis

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 913
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Abeelan Rasadurai ◽  
Matthias Briel ◽  
Pascal Düblin ◽  
Perrine Janiaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Median Number ◽  
First Year ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Clinical Trial Research ◽  
German Contribution

Background: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented volume of almost 3,000 clinical trials registered worldwide. We aimed to describe the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda in Germany during the first year of the pandemic. Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials assessing interventions to treat or prevent COVID-19 that were registered in 2020 and recruited or planned to recruit participants in Germany. We requested recruitment information from trial investigators as of April 2021. Results: In 2020, 65 trials were completely (n=27) or partially (n=38) conducted in Germany. Most trials investigated interventions to treat COVID-19 (86.2%; 56/65), in hospitalized patients (67.7%; 44/65), with industry funding (53.8%; 35/65). Few trials were completed (21.5%; 14/65). Overall, 187,179 participants were planned to be recruited (20,696 in Germany), with a median number of 106 German participants per trial (IQR 40 to 345).  From the planned German participants, 13.4%  were recruited (median 15 per trial (IQR 0 to 44). Conclusions: The overall German contribution to the worldwide COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda was modest. Few trials delivered urgently needed evidence. Most trials did not meet recruitment goals. Evaluation and international comparison of the challenges for conducting clinical trials in Germany is needed.

scholarly journals Guidelines on how to assess the validity of results presented in subgroup analysis of clinical trials

2002 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edson Duarte Moreira ◽  
Ezra Susser
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Usual Method ◽  
Validity Of Results ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Trial Participants

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and the Play the Winner Rule

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-623
Author(s):  
NIGEL PANETH ◽  
SYLVAN WALLENSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Treatment Comparisons

The therapeutic trial comparing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with conventional treatment in neonatal respiratory failure reported by Bartlett et al (Pediatrics 1985;76:479-487) uses a method of comparing treatments unlikely to be familiar to most pediatricians. Known as the "randomized play the winner" method, it has thus far been little used in clinical research. Most clinical investigators consider the conventional randomized clinical trial to be the last word in treatment comparisons. But randomized clinical trials are costly, cumbersome, and to some observers less than ideal ethically. The ethical problem arises from the fact that during a "successful" randomized clinical trial (ie, one that demonstrates a significant advantage to one treatment) about half of the trial subjects will receive a treatment which, at the end of the trial, will be known to be inferior.

Simulation Modeling as a Decision-Making Aid in Economic Evaluation for Randomized Clinical Trials

2011 ◽  
pp. 1738-1758
Author(s):  
Tillal Eldabi ◽  
Robert D. Macredie ◽  
Ray J. Paul
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Simulation Model ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Simulation Modeling ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Modeling Process

This chapter reports on the use of simulation in supporting decision-making about what data to collect in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We show how simulation also allows the identification of critical variables in the RCT by measuring their effects on the simulation model’s “behavior.” Healthcare systems pose many of the challenges, including difficulty in understanding the system being studied, uncertainty over which data to collect, and problems of communication between problem owners. In this chapter we show how simulation also allows the identification of critical variables in the RCT by measuring their effects on the simulation model’s “behavior.” The experience of developing the simulation model leads us to suggest simple but extremely valuable lessons. The first relates to the inclusion of stakeholders in the modeling process and the accessibility of the resulting models. The ownership and confidence felt by stakeholders in our case is, we feel, extremely important and may provide an example to others developing models.

scholarly journals Patient Income Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 536-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Kathy S. Albain ◽  
Carol M. Moinpour ◽  
Judith A. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. Patients and Methods We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. Results From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). Conclusion Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document